Skip to main content

View Diary: Sunday Talk - You Give Me, Fever!! (Updated !) (259 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mahler3

    This take on the Ricks book is off-base.  He's highly critical of the administration and its policies, not the military.  Moreover, Ricks has been reporting on military affairs for a long time; he has the credibility to make his claims stick.

    Read the book before criticizing it.  

    •  It's about Timing not Content (where were they... (0+ / 0-)

      Where were they when Truth and Mankind needed them.

      I mean Bremmer left Iraq in June 2004 - TWO YEARS AGO.  

      Only now "they're presenting the bill"

      Remember who WaPo first tried to kill a Walter Pincus story that WMD claims were bogus (in the end they buried it on pg 17).

      And how NYT and WaPo printed apologies to their readers for the pre-war "reporting."

      Woodward observed that journalists risked looking silly if they questioned the administration’s WMD claims and then the U.S.-led invasion force found the weapons.

      Woodward also noted the complaints about “groupthink” in the U.S. intelligence community on Iraq’s WMD, adding, “I think I was part of the groupthink. ...We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier” than widely believed.

      Woodward urged editors to run the Pincus article, though Woodward later faulted himself for not intervening with executive editor Leonard Downie to ensure that the Pincus article landed on Page One. Instead, the article questioning “whether administration officials have exaggerated intelligence” ran on March 16, relegated to the back pages of the national news section.

      http://www.consortiumnews.com/...

      •  not sure ricks = woodward (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mahler3

        By all means pillory Woodward--he reports on politics, and that's where all the criminal acivity was in the runup. Those guys failed us big time, not only in 2002/2003, but perhaps even more critically in 2000. Had they served the public interest then, we probably wouldn't be arguing about who to blame for the Iraq fiasco or whether the economy is going to crash this year or next.

        Ricks' beat is the military--he's a war correspondent, although a practitioner of that sterile, "objective" style I find kind of creepy in the context of mass carnage. I suspect his book may be in part a chance to release the pent-up editorializing he couldn't do then.

        But whether in 2000 or 2003, I think editors and publishers deserve far more of the blame. It was their job to give reporters at least the cover, if not outright encouragement, to buck the "groupthink" and risk "looking silly".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site